Basically from what I can gather, the intended purpose of HA systems is
load balancing, not true redundancy. It would be nice if it were
designed with both purposes in mind, but it doesn't seem to be. In my
system I've implemented a simplistic redundancy by cloning the SipXecs
server and leav
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 15:14 -0400, ingo...@netvision.an wrote:
> Which other services are not supported by Redundant server?
Essentially only call routing is redundant.
> Will they be
> in future releases?
That varies by service, but most of the endpoint services (things that
actually answer or
Which other services are not supported by Redundant server? Will they be
in future releases?
> [please do not reply to an existing message when starting a new topic-
it messes up threading]
>
> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 14:24 -0400, ingo...@netvision.an wrote:
>> MOH not heard when Primary server is
[please do not reply to an existing message when starting a new topic-
it messes up threading]
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 14:24 -0400, ingo...@netvision.an wrote:
> MOH not heard when Primary server is offline and calls are handled by
> Redundant. Currently only Primary provides MOH.
That is correct -
MOH not heard when Primary server is offline and calls are handled by
Redundant. Currently only Primary provides MOH.
___
sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users
Unsubscribe: http
